It has been a general principle in the art of club making to place the weight of the club primarily at the head and to lighten the shaft and grip sections to place the bulk of the weight within the head of the club. In the article “Bubbling Over,” Golf World, March 1995, an account of the development of the Taylor Made Bubble shaft was provided. In that article, it was indicated that part of the design of the club was to keep the upper part of the club at the grip end and the shaft as light as possible—some 40% lighter than standard to allow more mass to be placed at the club head to create a high moment of inertia while not increasing the overall weight of the club. While this design philosophy may be true for drivers, woods, hybrids and irons where a low overall inertia will contribute to a faster swing speed, in putting, a slower more controlled stroke, preferably a linear stroke, is desired. Thus, a putter with a weighted or high inertia grip is more likely to contribute to a slower more controlled putting stroke.
Modern theories of putting also emphasize the use of substantially large or over-size grips. U.S. Pat. No. 4,746,120 (Mockvak) discloses a putter having a grip diameter of at least 2.5 inches (63.5 mm) and discusses how this promotes balance and stability of the muscles used in putting. U.S. Pat. No. 4,272,077 (Spivey) discloses a putter having a grip between 1.25 and 1.87 inches (31.8 and 47.7 mm) and discusses how putter grips of these dimensions relax the hands and prevent jerking of unbalanced muscles. U.S. Pat. No. 5,569,098 (Klein) contains an excellent discussion of the mechanics of putting and how this is facilitated by over-size grips. Among other things, this patent teaches that the large diameter grip greatly reduces excessive wrist action and promotes the use of a looser grip which improves kinesthetic feedback thus enhancing the tactile sensitivity of the golfer's hands. Accordingly, the reaction forces acting on the club when the ball is struck can be better felt.
In the book “The Search for the Perfect Swing”, published 1968, page 135, it is postulated that an optimum putter design can be achieved by redistributing the weight to the sides of the putter head. This design philosophy is discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,941,390 (Hussey) which teaches that to achieve a maximized moment of inertia weighting material should be placed as far as possible from the neutral axis under consideration. In addition, there has been a trend in the design of putter heads to create excessively weighted and oversized putter heads in order to increase the mass of the putter head to increase the moment of inertia of such putter heads and to allow for the placement of weighting material away from the neutral axis of the putter.
“Face-balanced” putters are well known and have been available for many years. Such putters are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,544,883, 5,290,035, 5,226,654, 5,078,398, 4,852,879, 3,954,265, 2,820,638, and U.S. Pat No. Des. 221,446. In a face-balanced putter the axis of the shaft intersects the center of gravity of the putter head or intersects a line which extends through the center of gravity perpendicularly to the face. As such, face-balanced putters require a specific shaft position relative to the putter head in order to face-balance the putter. Often times, however, it is desirable in putter construction to attach the shaft closer to the heel of the putter. Such putters, however, result in a non-face-balanced design.
During a putting stroke, it is crucial for the golfer to cause the putter face to squarely strike the back of the ball and with a directional force that is parallel to the target line. Any deviation in the squareness of the putter face relative to the target line and/or the directional force from the putter face to the back of a golf ball will cause the golf ball to roll off line from the intended target line. That is, if the force applied to the back of a golf ball is not parallel to the target line, the ball will begin rolling at some angle relative to the intended target line. Likewise, if the face of the putter is not square at impact, even if the force applied by the putter is parallel to the target line, the ball will roll off line. As such, there have been a myriad of putter head designs intended to help the golfer impart a force to the back of the ball that is parallel to the target line and in a manner in which the putter face is perpendicular or square to the target line and the focus of most putter designs have been directed to the head itself.
It is also known in the art to provide a weighted element to the grip of a golf club as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,690,407, the entirety of which is incorporated herein by this reference. Likewise, it is known in the art to provide a weighted hollow cylindrical plug inserted into the golf shaft as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,244,209, the entirety of which is incorporated by this reference. Neither of these patents, however, allow for both symmetrical and asymmetrical weighting of a golf club.
Accordingly, it would be advantageous to provide a golf grip that provides the ability to face-balance a preexisting putter or square-balance an iron, wood or hybrid golf club without having to modify the golf club head or shaft. In the case of a putter, it would also be advantageous to provide a weighted putter grip that is oversized to provide an oversized putter grip that is easy to manufacture, easy to install and is customizable to provide a putter grip of various weight. It would be a further advantage to provide a weighted golf grip that allows for adjustment of the amount of weight. It would also be an advantage to provide a weighted grip that is of the same size and external configuration as a traditional golf grip.